Insert Client Name s1

APPEAL REFERENCES : APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78.

APPEAL BY BARBERRY DROITWICH LTD & PERSIMMON HOMES LTD & PROWTING PROJECTS LTD LAND NORTH OF PULLEY LANE AND NEWLAND LANE, NEWLAND, DROITWICH SPA, WORCESTERSHIRE

PROOF OF EVIDENCE (ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING) ON BEHALF OF SOGOS BY: STEPHEN STONEY BA (Hons), MRTPI - TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, WA RDELL ARMSTRONG LLP. Wardell Armstrong Sir Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 5BD, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)845 111 7777 Facsimile: +44 (0)845 111 8888 www.wardell-armstrong.com

DATE ISSUED: 17 January 2014 JOB NUMBER: ST.13787. REPORT NUMBER: POE.1

APPEAL REFERENCES : APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78.

PROOF OF EVIDENCE (PLANNING) ON BEHALF OF SOGOS BY: STEPHE N STONEY BA (Hons), MRTPI - TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, WARDELL ARM STRONG LLP.

This report has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the Contract with the Client. The report is confidential to the Client and Wardell Armstrong LLP accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report may be made known.

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Wardell Armstrong LLP.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES Wardell Armstrong is the trading name of Wardell Armstrong LLP, Registered in England No. OC307138. LAND AND PROPERTY

Registered office: Sir Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 5BD, United Kingdom MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING MINERAL ESTATES AND QUARRYING UK Offices: Stoke-on-Trent, Birmingham, Cardiff, Carlisle, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester, London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Penryn, Sheffield, Truro, West Bromwich. International Offices: Almaty, Moscow WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Appeals APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning

CONTENTS

1 RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE...... 1 2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE...... 2 3 THE PROPOSALS...... 3 4 MATTER 1: THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT....4 5 MATTER 2: THE EMERGING SOUTH WEST WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN...... 8 6 MATTER 4: THE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA...... 10 7 CONCLUSION...... 11

ST12463/J02 CDC1 November 2011 Appeals APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning

1 RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1.1 My name is Stephen Martin Stoney. I hold a degree in Urban & Regional Planning and am a corporate member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have over 30 years’ experience in planning including working for four local authorities in development control, and am currently Technical Director at regeneration consultancy Wardell Armstrong LLP based in Stoke-on-Trent. My current duties include advising a range of clients in both the public and private sector on planning, environmental and regeneration matters. I have undertaken planning appeals for the public and private sectors, and interest groups.

1.2 The evidence which I have prepared and provide for the appeals APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 in this proof of evidence is I believe true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution, the Royal Town Planning Institute. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.

1.3 I have been instructed by SOGOS, an unincorporated community group from the Droitwich Spa area which was formed to promote sustainable development in the town.

1.4 Before accepting the instruction to present the environmental planning case I made myself familiar with the nature of the appeal proposals, the sites and surroundings and the terms of the decision of Wychavon District Council. After discussion with my co-consultant Mr Pettitt following his assessment I was satisfied I could properly support the case against the proposals for SOGOS.

1.5 For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Pettitt will provide evidence on matters of traffic, transport and infrastructure.

1.6 I confirm that my duty as an expert witness overrides my duty to those instructing me and will give my evidence impartially and objectively.

ST13787 Page 1 January 2014 Appeals APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning

2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 My evidence is prepared on behalf of SOGOS and deals with Environmental Planning matters.

2.2 Attached to this proof are four letters from members of SOGOS who wish these to be considered as representations to the appeal rather than being presented individually as personal statements, and are complimentary to matters promoted in my evidence.

2.3 The attached letters are from:

 E. S. Hill & Sons  M.B. Skan  T. Calcutt  S. P. Sparrow

2.4 They are at Appendix A.

2.5 The scope of my evidence is directed towards Matters 1, 2 and 4 of the identified 7 main matters for consideration. I do not propose to set out all of the relevant development plan policies or sections of the NPPF as these are set out in the statements of case of the council and the appellants.

2.6 Acting for SOGOS I have cross-referenced certain core documents but not appended them in that they are not a Rule 6 Party and all documents have been referenced elsewhere.

3 THE PROPOSALS

3.1 The appeal sites and proposed developments are adequately defined in the statements of case, and are:

 Appeal A – Barberry Droitwich Ltd in respect of land North of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane, south of Primsland : APP/H1840/AS/13/2199085  Appeal B – Persimmon Homes Ltd and Prowting Projects Ltd in respect of land North of Newlands Lane : APP/H1840/A/13/2199426

4 MATTER 1: THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

4.1 The appellant contends that Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan does not take proper account of the growth aspirations of the NPPF and therefore carries little weight.

4.2 I strongly disagree. In that respect surely it is necessary to use extant policy to judge whether any adverse impact on landscape would be so damaging that it would not be offset by the development’s benefits..

4.3 In recognising the requirement ‘to boost significantly the supply of housing’ (para 47) the NPPF explains that proposals should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 49). In terms of paras 49 and 14 of the NPPF it is my view that inconsistency and timeliness should remain with the decision maker.

4.4 The approach taken by the Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires development proposals to safeguard, restore or enhance the natural and built environment in which they sit is in my opinion consistent with the NPPF’s approach of seeking positive improvements in environmental quality (para 9) and conserving and enhancing the natural environment (para 17).

4.5 I do not agree with the appellant’s contention that the Development Plan is out of date because they consider it is time expired. Para 215 of the NPPF explains that the degree of consistency is paramount, not the age of the policies or the plan period they were originally framed to cover. This in my view determines the weight to be applied.

4.6 I see no justification for significantly reducing the weight carried by the Local Plan policy context to these appeals.

4.7 Policy GD1 ‘Location Strategy for new Development’ is clearly concerned about where development takes place rather than how much. The introductory statement at 2.3.1 confirms that its purpose is to ensure the broad location of development is consistent with national objectives and can be reasonably accommodated. Again, I consider this policy of similar validity in weight terms to ENV1 through the same reasoning.

4.8 It is my opinion that neither of the appeal proposals is in accordance with the provisions of the extant Local Plan, in particular Policy GD1 and I am professionally most convinced by Ms Illman’s manner of dealing with Policy ENV1 on behalf of the Council than any other interpretation.

4.9 It is accepted that the planning process involves balancing competing considerations in decision making, and it is a question of weighing all relevant material considerations in the balance in order to determine suitability or otherwise.

4.10 It is therefore required to consider whether material considerations indicate whether a decision should be made other than in accordance with the Development Plan; most notably whether the appeal proposals would deliver sustainable development as prescribed in the NPPF.

4.11 I accept that there is a positive social and economic dimension in providing housing in Droitwich Spa, although the same interpretation can be given to any significant additional housing in any town. I consider the most important matter is that of environmental acceptability, where I consider there is an overall negative impact.

4.12 The simple fact of the case is that there is significant loss of land that currently constitutes open countryside which is identified as being within a Special Landscape Character. The NPPF (para 113) promotes a criteria based approach. Development on the scale proposed in this sensitive location in my opinion contravenes the NPPF objective of conserving the natural environment.

4.13 The appeal sites comprise land which is currently farmed, and in this respect the letter in Appendix 1 from E.S. Hill & Sons should be taken in to consideration, in particular their reference to the appeal proposals and their adverse economic circumstances to farming.

4.14 I have already indicated that in my opinion the economic and social benefits are not significant, and the environmental matters of consideration are balanced negatively. The NPPF clearly sets out the core planning principles to be considered, with the first saying that planning should ‘... empower local people to shape their surroundings’.

4.15 The selected letters in Appendix 1 set a context for much wider strong local opposition to the appeal proposals as they are received as genuinely adversely affecting the levels of amenity they currently enjoy. The letters from Mr Skan and Ms Calcutt for example illustrate the levels to which this area of current open countryside is valued for walking, cycling, horse riding, dog walking and generally benefitting from using this area in an uninterrupted fashion away from but on the fringe of the town. It has a strong rural feel and is clearly highly valued. These views are complimentary to those of the Ramblers Association of Worcestershire.

4.16 Neither appeal site is in my consideration in a sustainable location in the context of transportation considerations. Mr Pettitt has looked at this aspect in a wider context, including deliverability of proposals to seek to meet suitable pedestrian catchment. The council have questioned deliverability. My reasoning from a planning context is that the shortest walking route for the nearest residents to the town centre is approximately 1.2 miles, and at furthest 1.5 miles with inclines involved; which in my opinion is beyond recommended walkable catchments and the distance where walking has potential for replacing short car trips. This to my mind brings question to a significant aspect of sustainability.

4.17 I do not consider the bus access through the Appeal A site is acceptable, and to the contrary feel it is ‘forcing’ a solution toward a site(s) which cannot be considered as a sustainable location in that the appeal sites are naturally configured with natural topography from my perspective to face outwards toward the south and away from the town. Appeal B offers no known promotion of sustainable transport. This leads me to the view that the proposals do not satisfy Paras 37 and 38 of the NPPF as important sustainability considerations.

4.18 There is clearly strong feeling, as reflected in the letter of Mr Sparrow at Appendix 1, that there will be material and significant adverse impact on the levels of amenity currently considered by residents of neighbouring properties in Yew Tree Hill, Primsland Fields and Rebekah Gardens which back on to Newland Road, which in particular is subject to substantial change in form and character. The detail of this and other change is also dealt with by others, most notably Mr Pettitt and Ms Illsley.

5 MATTER 2: THE EMERGING SOUTH WEST WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

5.1 The current position and context has already been extensively and accurately represented by the Council.

5.2 The proposed developments when taken together (Appeal A and B) are significant in that they are of the scale that would normally constitute a strategic development in Plan-making terms (over 500 units). It is my contention that granting approval through the appeal process either in respect of both developments would significantly undermine the plan- making process by making a pre-determined judgement in isolation about the location and scale of other housing development at a strategic scale.

5.3 These matters should as a matter of principle be addressed in the SWDP as a Plan- making function, as justifying any development in isolation of strategic consideration would have an adverse effect in perpetuity. This in my opinion should not be considered lightly and considered arbitrarily particularly in view of the existing Special Landscape Area designation of the sites.

5.4 Whilst Appeal B is in my opinion related to less sustainable development, it would to my mind enclose Appeal site A and therefore there is cumulative impact which requires proper consideration taking in to account existing and emerging considerations.

5.5 Granting permission to either or both Appeals A and B would in my view undermine a very important evolving South Worcestershire Plan-led system which is the vehicle to make assessments and reasoned choices. These proposals and other existing housing commitments would in my opinion deliver a scale of development where the cumulative impact requires adequate strategic assessment.

5.6 It is my opinion that this level of growth in Droitwich Spa requires consideration against significant matters like infrastructure as potential planning constraints and assessment against core planning principles.

5.7 I think it is important to note that Yew Tree Hill was considered as an urban extension in 2008 as part of the South Worcestershire joint Core ST13787 Page 7 January 2014 Appeals APP/H1840/A/13/2199085 & APP/H1840/A/13/2199426 Proof of Evidence for SOGOS on Environmental Planning

Strategy Preferred Options. Location and access were at issue, and also landscape character impacts and the impact on the setting of the rural character to the south of the town. These important factors remain in influencing the area’s omission from the current version of the SWDP.

5.8 Droitwich Spa is quite unusual in my view in that there is a very sharp transition from town to countryside in the south, with the town sitting behind the rural skyline of Yew Tree Hill with its western spur being a strong defining visual, physical and sensible natural limit to the town. The PTP Study of 1995 encompasses this, and further concludes that on landscape grounds there should not be further development, citing impact on landscape character, visual amenity and value to local residents (refer to my Appendix A). The effect referred to and supported in-principle by the 2005 Local Plan Inspector was that development would ‘appear as a satellite village’ rather than an extension of Droitwich Spa. I not see that anything has changed in that respect.

5.9 Through a notable period of site consideration there has been policy support for development on the basis of landscape character, which in my view remains at this time until any further review takes place, say in any updated County Landscape Character Assessment. The current version was adoped by Wychavon Council in September 2011.

6 MATTER 4: THE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA

6.1 There is demonstrable evidence through up to date policy that gives significant weight to delivery of housing, a matter to be properly weighed in the balancing exercise.

6.2 In this case however the proposed development would clearly result in significant impact on the character and appearance of the area, and the residential amenity of those residing in the locality. I have assessed all the Landscape evidence put forward and take the view that there would be significant harm to the character of the local landscape where I find it hard to see any demonstrable justification at this time for ridge-line development (or development cut in to the ridge). Mr Sparrow’s letter at Appendix A gives a local resident’s perspective to the appeal sites and the local environment.

6.3 The nature of the schemes is that their impact will be both substantial and long-term. The harm to the character of the area, the surrounding environment and overall amenity including that of neighbours, who have objected to the proposals in great numbers, in my view constitutes a compelling objection to the proposed appeal developments.

6.4 All the landscape experts involved in assessing the scheme have drawn out different interpretations of landscape harm and how this might be mitigated. I have objectively chosen many of Ms Illsley’s prime considerations in forming my view that the appeal developments are unacceptable due to demonstrable harm.

6.5 Ms Illsley has in my opinion properly utilised the Worcestershire Landscape Character Assessment working tool for development control purposes and the outcome is clear. It is set out in Ms Illsley’s proof at Section 2.7, and states ‘ ... adversely impacting on a settlement pattern that is of key significance within this landscape type’.

7 CONCLUSION

7.1 There is clearly a significant and acknowledged weight in supporting proposals for appropriate housing growth, but there also weight to be given to established development limits in the adopted local plan and to the policy objective to safeguard the countryside. Until the plan context changes, this should carry significant weight.

7.2 The question of whether it is necessary to release sites outside the defined development limits to accommodate housing needs, notwithstanding the development plan position, depends in my view on the judgement that is made in terms of effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area. Assessment of the qualities and character in this case related to the appeals has been made and borne in mind this will be a long term and irreversible decision.

7.3 It is my view that the material circumstances demonstrate significant impacts and detrimental effect upon Droitwich Spa and its’ residents on sites that are currently regarded as open countryside.

7.4 Both appeal sites lie outside the built up area of the town as defined in the Wychavon Local Plan where Policy GD1 contains a presumption against development and remains extant policy. Neither site is included within an urban extension in the submitted South Worcestershire Development Plan. This Plan-making process should undertake a strategic assessment of future development and make a proper and informed judgment of development needs, rather than ad-hoc decision making.

7.5 Drawing the overall planning balance, despite the weight afforded to housing delivery in this case it is concluded that those considerations do not outweigh the harm clearly set out as compelling objections.

7.6 I respectfully request, on behalf of SOGOS, that the Inspector dismisses the appeals.

ST13787 Page 11 January 2014